| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. McWilliam : I am very surprised at what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In Committee, he had the opportunity to vote for specific safety amendments that we introduced, but he did not do so. Indeed, he opposed them.
Mr. Hunter : That is very easy to answer. I listened to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, but was not convinced by them. That is why I did not vote for the amendments.
Mr. Hunter : We listened for many hours to the arguments, but we were not convinced. The fault lies with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, not with us.
Mr. Rogers : Even if the hon. Gentleman felt that our arguments were not good enough, surely he should have been convinced by the content of the amendments, every one of which was worded carefully with a view to enhancing the safety aspects of the operation at Aldermaston. I accept that we may not have been able to convince the hon. Gentleman by argument, but surely the text should have done the job.
Mr. Hunter : I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I certainly dispute the force of the argument which supported the amendments, and for those reasons I shall have no part of them. I conclude by stressing that I look forward to further reassurances from my hon. Friend the Minister.
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : It is a pleasure to reply to the first debate on the Bill on Report. As the House will know, the amendments are intended to ensure that the Atomic Weapons Establishment will in future be operated not by a commercial company but by an executive agency within the civil service. We have had a very sober debate, and I shall seek to answer the points that have been made and restrict myself to the scope of the amendments.
We have to admit that, if we accepted the amendments there would be no need for the Bill. Obviously, the Secretary of State has the power to set up an executive agency without a Bill. Therefore, everything in the Bill relates directly or indirectly to the fact that, under contractual operation, the staff at the AWE would no longer be civil servants. However, I should like to reply to the point made initially by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and stress that we are not privatising the assets, property or equipment of the AWE, which will remain under the ownership of the Secretary of State. We are transferring only the management of the manufacturing. It is important to bear that in mind when people start talking about privatisation.
Mr. Rogers : I am afraid that, like the Minister of State, who has left the Chamber, the Minister simply was not listening to what I said. I never said that the Government were privatising the assets or property of the AWE. I said
Column 1103
that they were privatising the management of the production of nuclear warheads within the establishment. I accept that the Minister will remain the janitor of the buildings.Mr. Carlisle : I am glad that, in that poetic way, the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that we have reached agreement on that particularly important point.
In contrary to his assertions, we have seriously considered the arguments in favour of a "next steps" agency at AWE. Such agencies have considerable attractions for those organisations which should be part of the civil service, but after careful thought we reached the conclusion that the AWE is not such an establishment. However, I should like to join the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) in paying tribute to the staff at AWE. The fact that they are being contractorised is no slight on their considerable and unique talents, expertise and skills. Some of the staff at AWE are pre-eminent in the world in their branch of science.
However, we believe that enterprises, especially industrial ones, are generally run more efficiently in the private sector. Therefore, where it is right and feasible to introduce full contractorisation, we prefer to do so.
The Atomic Weapons Establishment is involved in research and development and in manufacturing. In our view, such an establishment belongs in industry and not in government. Of course, the fact that the business is nuclear means that very stringent safeguards are required, but not that personnel must be civil servants. Just because manufacturing is best managed by those with experience of industry, agency status would be only a partial solution to the problems at AWE. That would not involve the full and early introduction of private sector expertise and would not allow access to the production and management expertise of a large industrial concern. In my view, it is only full contractorisation that can give full, private-sector management flexibility, pay flexibility without reference to Whitehall, as well as the all-important access to the corporate expertise of a major industrial company or consortium.
AWE does everything from research and development to production, in-service maintenance support and final dismantling. AWE is therefore a complete industry and it should be allowed to benefit from the industrial management expertise of the private sector. I believe that the logic of that argument means that we have every right to carry it through.
We must always remember that our ability to meet the challenging Trident programme which is now building up is our prime aim. That is vital if we are to sustain our independent deterrent. We believe that the contractorisation of the operations at the AWE will secure that aim.
I have visited the various establishments, and I know that there is concern among the employees about various aspects of the change because we are asking them to leave the civil service. Many of the issues raised by them relate to employment and safety.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) for his kind words, as well as for those of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Those hon. Members and others are particularly concerned about safety aspects, which formed the bulk of the questions raised in the debate. Safety is the paramount aim, which
Column 1104
we intend to achieve. We shall have all the existing safeguards, such as the safety directorate, but we shall also introduce two important additions.First, the compliance office, which is responsible to and employed by the Ministry of Defence, will be represented at the four establishments. The staff of that office will have the right to go anywhere in those establishments to monitor any activity to ensure that full safety is achieved. The second addition is the safety requirement which will figure largely in the contract. Penalties will be imposed if safety is not properly pursued, and, in addition, incentives will be part of the contract to reward excellent performance on safety.
Mr. McWilliam : Who will pay the salary of the compliance officer and his staff?
Mr. Carlisle : The MOD. The staff will be employed by the MOD, thereby ensuring their independence.
If the contractor impinges on the safety requirements or does not live up to his legal requirements he will, for the first time, be subject to a court of law, which the Secretary of State never can be.
Mr. Dalyell : Is the compliance office responsible for passing judgment on the stability or otherwise of existing nuclear weapons? If not, who is responsible?
Mr. Carlisle : I shall deal with that point in a moment, but it is important to remember that the responsibility for safety does not rest just with the compliance office. That responsibility will rest largely with the contractor and the work force.
As I said, the safety directorate will remain at the AWE, and the unions and all the employees will have a direct interest in safety. When I visited those establishments, they told me that they would be the first people to jump on any lapse in safety standards according to their views. Therefore, safety is not just the responsibility of one person ; it will depend upon the combined surveillance and alertness of a range of people.
The points raised about safety are of particular relevance to the local people and to my hon. Friends the Member for Hampshire, North-West and for Newbury (Sir M. McNair Wilson), who wrote to me raising points of interest throughout the Bill's passage, and it is nice to see him in recovered health, and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who also pursued safety matters throughout the Bill's passage.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how he envisages the compliance officer operating? Can any employee of the private contractor go freely to the compliance officer and say that an infraction of procedures has taken place, of which the latter may not be aware because some of the poisons are invisible and cannot be recorded on a monitor, without it affecting his promotion or job prospects?
Mr. Carlisle : That would be a reasonable way to proceed. The compliance officer will not only receive information as a result of his own observations and studies but also from within the establishment. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman suggests takes place.
Sir David Mitchell : Since the compliance officer is to have a relationship with the Ministry of Defence, can my
Column 1105
hon. Friend give the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) asked in relation to answering questions in the House?Mr. Carlisle : All Members of Parliament will be able to ask questions in the House on any matter concerning the AWE, and the Secretary of State will have to answer them.
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : What about the question of safety? It will be the responsibility of the compliance officer to see that everything is okay, but what powers will he have if he notices that the contractor does not have enough staff on the job to provide safety cover? That could happen tomorrow, and we want to know what the compliance officer would do if it did.
Mr. Carlisle : The compliance office will have strong powers. It will be able to instruct the contractor to remedy the defects, and if the contractor fails to do so, the compliance office will have the power to shut down that part of Aldermaston ; so its powers are strong.
Mr. Rogers : If that is the case, why are the compliance officer's terms of reference not within the Bill? As I understand it, the compliance office will be set up. Under the terms of contract as outlined at various times by the Minister, if the contractor conforms he will receive his money, if he puts up a good performance he will receive extra money, but if he does not perform, the only way to make him do so is to go to court. That is what the Minister said when he opened the debate. Why does not the Minister put the functions and duties of the compliance office in the Bill, as the Opposition suggested in an amendment in Committee?
4.45 pm
Mr. Carlisle : The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House long enough to know that everyone frowns on a part of a Bill that is superfluous. The Secretary of State already has the power to set up a compliance office. To prove that, the compliance office is already being formed. It is bad practice to put into a Bill powers which already exist, and it is right to follow good legislative procedures.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : Is not the Minister being a little disingenuous in that answer ? This is a matter of public confidence. We are changing, dramatically and fundamentally, the way in which nuclear weapons are developed and produced. Would it not be in the interests of public confidence and in support of what the Government now propose to ensure that the compliance officer has express statutory responsibilties in respect of the new arrangements that the Bill seeks to introduce ?
Mr. Carlisle : No, the Secretary of State already has the power to set up a compliance office, and he has given undertakings time after time that the compliance office will be a central part of our plans for contractorisation. As I said, it is superfluous to write it into the Bill. If one were to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's line of argument, every Bill would be massive, because everyone would be seeking guarantees. I remind Opposition Members that this is a narrow Bill, which creates arrangements in connection with the setting up of an employing company.
Column 1106
Mr. Haynes : The Minister really is talking a load of rubbish.
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (Leeds, North-East) : The hon. Gentleman cannot say that.
Mr. Haynes : I am saying it. He is talking rubbish. We want to know what kind of safety cover will be available in the units and what kind of responsibilities this chappie will have. He has massive responsibilities and it is a load of rubbish to say that they should not be in the Bill. It is not just hon. Members who want to know exactly what responsibilities this chap will have. The Minister is pushing things to one side in this important measure.
Mr. Carlisle : If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such an intervention, he should listen more carefully to the debate. I have answered quite a few of his points already and it was a mistake to give way to him.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has been very patient. He raised an important point. As I understand it, he was talking about the implications of the Drell report. We remain closely in touch with our United States colleague. Governments of all parties give the most careful consideration to safety matters, because safety of the nuclear warheads and missiles is pre-eminent.
It may be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman to know that the warhead that we will be using in Trident will be designed and manufactured in the United Kingdom. It is not the same as that designed in the United States, although we have confidence in the United States warhead. It will be the subject of a comprehensive series of trials and independent assessments to ensure its safety both before and during operational service. There is an independent check on the safety of our nuclear weapons in the form of the nuclear weapons safety committee and the ordnance board, both of which have independent status and which report on and study carefully the safety of our warheads.
We take the matter extremely seriously, but we are confident that what we are designing and have designed is safe. In addition, as I have already explained, safety will be central to the contract, and we will not compromise on it one jot. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman. It is obviously a matter that we will have to continue to regard seriously.
Mr. Dalyell : Will the ordnance board, under the terms of the contract, have complete access to the confidential information of the contractors? Are the contractors obliged to reveal anything that is asked of them to the ordnance board?
Mr. Carlisle : The contract has not yet been written, as Labour Members know, but we intend to put into it everything necessary for safety. The nuclear weapons safety committee and the ordnance board will continue to have the full authority of their independent status.
Mr. Rogers : To use the words of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) the Minister's response is disingenuous. We tried in Committee to get details of the contract, and we were told that the contract had not yet been drawn up. For the past year, however, 22 people at Aldermaston have been carrying out the functions of phase 1 of the contract. The Minister therefore should not say that we do not know what is in the contract because it has not yet been drawn
Column 1107
up. There is an extant contract, and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has asked whether the provisions governing the ordnance board are in that contract.The Minister appears to be nodding. In that case, next year, after we win the election, we shall check those terms, because he will not let us know them now.
Mr. Carlisle : The provision does not have to be in the present contract, because the place has not yet been contractorised. So the authority of the ordnance board and the nuclear weapons safety committee is the same as it has been for the the past few years. The hon. Gentleman cannot have understood the Bill. At the moment, in phase 1, there is an interim contract. Only in October 1992 will we enter the second phase of full contractorisation. There is no point in starting to draw up the contract in detail until we have secured the Bill.
The hon. Member for Blaydon asked a question about safety, referring to the American experience. The American experience, and indeed the experience of Russia, where there was an horrific nuclear explosion at Chernobyl in a nuclear institution run by the State, show that, whether nuclear facilities are owned by the state or are privately operated, safety has to be considered as a separate issue. We have studied the American experience carefully and have ensured that we would add the safeguard of the compliance office to our current safeguards. Safety will be written into the contract, and we are satisfied that our arrangements will meet any criticisms that arose with the GOCO experience.
Mr. Dalyell : There must be a careful study of the American experience. Has the Ministry of Defence considered the Zebrowski report on Three Mile Island in that context?
Mr. Carlisle : I am certain that it will have done, but perhaps I should write to the hon. Gentleman, who is a past master at bowling googlies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury raised an important point about the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Its studies will continue and have our full support. We value them highly. It may be of some comfort to my hon. Friend to know that the latest study of his area showed that radiation from Aldermaston and Burghfield was negligible--far too low to account for any observed increase in childhood leukaemia in his area. In any event, I understand that the increases noted appear to have taken place in major urban areas such as Reading, not in the villages next to the Atomic Weapons Establishment site.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : Would it be fair to ask my hon. Friend whether the tritium leak will be referred to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment?
Mr. Carlisle : That is very much up to the Committee. The incident took place in a research facility which had nothing to do with the manufacturing operation now being helped by Hunting-BRAE. The leak was very small--only two thousandths of the normal annual natural radiation to which people are exposed. Nevertheless, any leak of any sort is serious, and we are investigating it. We intend to learn the lessons of any inquiry into it.
Mr. Rogers : Again I do not understand the Minister's answer. The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M.
Column 1108
McNair-Wilson), in whose constituency Aldermaston lies, asked the Minister about the tritium leak. I understood the Minister to reply that the leak took place in a research facility, but in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), he said that it took place in the A91 building, which is a production facility, not a research facility. Can the Minister clear up the confusion?Mr. Carlisle : The A91 building has not even been commissioned yet. There is no tritium in the A91 facility. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. [H on. Members :-- "You gave that information yourself."] I shall have to look into the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West was worried about other aspects of safety and security. The Ministry of Defence will retain responsibility for the positive vetting of everyone concerned. Redundancy terms for anyone now at the AWE will continue as if they were in the civil service before vesting day. Those terms will be written into the contract, which will come up for renewal after five or seven years, but the redundancy terms would continue thereafter as a condition of service, which could not change without the employees' agreement. If employees did not agree, they could claim unfair constructive dismissal, under which they would be entitled to their previous redundancy entitlement. That gives them security.
Mr. McWilliam : Will the Minister confirm that the protection under TUPE will last only until vesting day, and that from vesting day plus one it will disappear?
Mr. Carlisle : Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that question?
Mr. McWilliam : Will the Minister confirm that the employees are protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 until vesting day, but that after they have been transferred into their new employment, they will lose that protection? Even before that time, they can claim only unfair dismissal.
Mr. Carlisle : That is not true. The TUPE regulations persist for a certain time after vesting day.
Pensions were debated at length in Committee, and the House will recall that AWE staff are usually members either of the principal civil service pension scheme or the UKAEA principal non-industrial superannuation scheme. Following contractorisation, a single new scheme will be established for AWE staff ; it will match as closely as possible the schemes as they are at vesting day. No one will be made to suffer detriment to their pension arrangements as a result of contractorisation. The pension rights will be written into the contract and thus guaranteed, so that everyone's pension will be at least as good as the pension that he can expect now.
Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West) : Will my hon. Friend comment on the transferability of the new pension under the new structure? Will it be transferable to other pension funds if the staff move elsewhere?
5 pm
Mr. Carlisle: I shall continue with the section of my brief that I was on before my hon. Friend intervened. I understand that he may wish to return to the question of transferability.
Column 1109
I fully understand that individuals feel an attachment to their pension scheme and may be anxious at the prospect of leaving it. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North- West and others were especially concerned about members of the AWE staff who are members of what they have described as the atomic energy scheme. I undertook sympathetically to consider the arguments that my hon. Friends advanced.I am pleased to confirm that, if they so choose, staff of both pension schemes will be able to leave their accrued service up to vesting day in their present schemes. They will not have to transfer their accumulated pension rights to the new AWE scheme. A person will therefore be able to receive an atomic energy or civil service pension on retirement that is based upon their length of service before vesting day. That will be topped up by an additional pension under the new scheme that covers service after vesting day. This option may be especially relevant to the older AWE members of the atomic energy scheme, given their attachment to the scheme and the considerable length of service covered by it. To this extent, no one is being forced out of his or her existing pension scheme. I have discussed in some detail with my colleagues in the Treasury and the Department of Energy the possibility of going further and allowing, by amendment to the Bill, service by ex-atomic energy staff at AWE after vesting day to accrue within the atomic energy pension scheme as opposed to the new AWE scheme. My hon. Friends will remember that the possibility was debated in detail in Committee. I must tell them, however, that the conclusion of the discussions with the Treasury and the Department of Energy was that it would be wrong to agree to such an amendment. That is partly because of longer-term complications that would result in having some former civil service staff at AWE in a different scheme from other employees, and partly because it is the Government's general policy that, whenever staff are transferred from the public to the private sector, they should not remain in a public service pension scheme. I must emphasise that staff will not have to take their accrued service in the atomic energy scheme and the civil service out of the atomic energy scheme if they do not wish to do so. I can help to some extent those who are concerned about these matters. I know from the contents of my postbag and from talking to those who are concerned that the older members of the atomic energy pension scheme are by no means entirely content with all its provisions. Some of those at AWE are less than happy about the scheme's constraints on retirement before the age of 65.
I shall ask my officials to discuss with the trade unions possible ways of extending to ex-atomic energy staff at AWE some of the flexibility that will be incorporated in the new pension scheme for AWE staff after contractorisation. It is unlikely that we shall be able to substitute 60 years for 65, but we may be able to ameliorate the position somewhat. To that extent, the new pension scheme at the contractorised AWE will be an improvement on the pension conditions which would otherwise have prevailed for the ex-atomic energy staff at AWE. When the pension
Column 1110
arrangements are improved in the way that I have described, I hope that my hon. Friends will be partially satisfied at least. Since 5 December 1990, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence first announced the Government's proposal to introduce full contractorisation at AWE, there has been much debate about the principle of contractorisation and the options. I have heard nothing to weaken my conviction that the introduction of a contract operation with appropriate safety, security and financial safeguards is the best way forward for AWE. The House will know that AWE has been able to meet the requirements of the early stages of the Trident programme. As the requirements increase and AWE's manpower shortage continues, it is necessary that it should do even better. To achieve that, we must bring to AWE the production management expertise and freedom to manage which a contractor operation can offer. We cannot secure that freedom or full management and manufacturing experience if AWE remains an agency. I therefore recommend that the House reject the amendments.Mr. Rogers : I am most unhappy with the Minister's reply, although I am obviously pleased, as are those who represent employees at Aldermaston, with the proposed alterations to the pension fund. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would welcome the proposals, as would the work force and the trade unions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) asked the Minister whether he could give any assurance that employees would be protected from redundancy after vesting day plus one, and referred to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The Minister replied, "Yes, that is in the regulations." Where does it appear? I ask the question at an early stage in my remarks, so that those in the Box can have time to advise the Minister.
Sir David Mitchell : I understand that the assurance appeared in the contract and not in the regulations. It will be part of the terms of the contract that the contractor has to comply with the civil service terms on redundancy during the term of the contract. I understand also that that is what my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to confirm that. I hope that I have succeeded in explaining why the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) cannot find the assurance in the regulations.
Mr. Rogers : I was not talking about what was said in Committee. I was referring to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box a short while ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon asked the Minister whether there would be any protection from redundancy for workers on vesting day plus one. The Minister replied that the answer was to be found in the 1981 regulations. My colleagues and I have read the regulations, and it seems that they do not provide the assurance that the Minister suggested. Our argument is that all the talk about protecting people's rights falls in the absence of the assurance in the regulations.
Mr. McWilliam : Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect on the Minister's statement that the contract has not yet been written. I do not know how he can construct legislation
Column 1111
that ends in a contract when he does not know what will be in the contract. Have I understood correctly what the Minister appears to be saying?Mr. Kenneth Carlisle rose --
Mr. Rogers : I shall respond, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon intervened in my speech. He has raised a point of interest, not merely a debating point.
There are 7,000 workers who are concerned about redundancy, and most of them are the constituents of the Minister's hon. Friends. I am happy to allow the Minister to make even a lengthy intervention to clarify the issue.
Mr. Carlisle : With the leave of the House, I shall intervene. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) has provided the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) with the correct answer. The 1981 regulations have been implemented in the transfers of many employees, not least those in the dockyards. It seems that the hon. Member for Rhondda has not read my answer on building A91. There is no tritium in the building and it has not yet been commissioned. It has been constructed for the treatment of low-level liquid waste. Some faults were found in it while it was in the process of being commissioned. That is why there was no radioactive material in it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads my answer.
Mr. Rogers : I am quite happy to read the answer. The Minister said that there was corrosion in the A91 building and that it was a production, not a research, facility. I have the grace to say that, in that matter, the Minister may be right. I only wish that he had the grace to apologise when he has been shown so often to be wrong. Hansard will show what he said about the transfer of undertakings on the protection of employment. He cannot bury his answer under a frivolous remark about safety problems. Many constituents of Conservative Members are concerned about the protection of redundancy and pension rights. Indeed, I am not sure about any protection. If those people asked me for advice, I could not give it to them. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who is a former Transport Minister, is an expert in privatisation matters. I served on the Committee that considered the Bill to privatise bus services. He was so good that, when we asked him why he wanted to privatise bus services, he said, "I went to Cheltenham, where there is a private scheme. I jumped on a couple of buses and asked a few old ladies what they thought of privatised bus services. They said that they thought they were good, and that is why we want to extend privatisation throughout the country." That was the great scientific survey on which the Department of Transport based the privatisation of bus services. Nevertheless, more thought went into the privatisation of bus services than has gone into this Bill, which will privatise the production of nuclear warheads. It is a cobbled-together Bill.
I do want to delay the House as we are anxious to proceed to the first vote. I am anxious to discover how Conservative Members will vote. When we tabled amendments in Committee dealing with such matters as safety, pensions and redundancy, which sought to enhance the position of the constituents of Conservative Members and others who, like me, live in south Wales, Conservative Members voted with the Government. We must not forget
Column 1112
that Aldermaston is only one of four atomic weapons establishments. If Conservative Members had any guts or gumption, they would vote with the Opposition tonight. They cannot be clear about the issues. I challenge them--especially those who have had letters from constituents, copies of which have been sent to us--to vote with us tonight.I know that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West voted with us once in Committee, so perhaps I am doing him a disservice. He spoke fluently and impressed the Minister. Conservative Members must put their votes where their mouths are, and that means voting with us tonight.
Sir David Mitchell : The hon. Gentleman has issued a challenge, and I will take it head on. My constituents have raised certain matters with me through letters, meetings and interviews. On each of the four matters on which I asked for assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister, I have had assurance. That is why I feel confident in supporting my hon. Friend in the Lobby.
Mr. Rogers : The hon. Gentleman is easily pleased. He should have pressed the Minister to include some safeguards in the Bill. The Minister said that it is a very narrow Bill. When we spoke about share deals and other matters being included in the Bill, he said that it was too narrow. It is ; it is only three or four pieces of paper. There would have been plenty of room to include the regulations and safeguards that we want. We would have been quite happy to read a couple more pages if that meant that we could protect the interests of those working in the establishments.
5.15 pm
We are not happy with the Minister's replies. He will not accept the amendment that would establish an agency, and that is a severe indictment of his party's policy. We want an agency based on the "next steps" model, which is his party's policy. It has been promulgated, developed and promoted by the Government, but the Minister would not trust it to run Aldermaston. He claims that any industrial activity is better in private hands. We all know what happened to Rolls-Royce ; it did not do very well in private hands.
Mr. Greg Knight (Derby, North) : It did.
Mr. Rogers : The hon. Gentleman is ignorant of what happened. He is only a young lad in school at the time. His school probably did not have newspapers. The hon. Gentleman is one of those to whom the Prince of Wales referred recently.
Rolls-Royce was a private company, but it went bust. It was taken into public ownership and turned around, and it was then returned to the private sector. Ferranti, another defence company, also went bust, was taken into public ownership and turned around. It is now back in the hands of the private-sector friends of the Tory party. There are numerous examples of private companies which, were it not for public intervention, would have collapsed. That is the history of the car industry. The private-sector friends of the Minister are not really that good.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's theme. Will he apply his mind to what would happen if a company that obtained the contract that the Bill would pass to the private sector fell into liquidation or
Column 1113
became incapable of fulfilling its responsibilities under the contract? What would be the consequences for national security?Mr. Rogers : I had intended to deal later with the problem of the contract. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke eloquently about that both in Committee and in his earlier intervention. The only recourse against a contractor would be through a court of law. Let us suppose that there was an emission of radioactive waste, followed by litigation against the company. Which company would be the subject of that litigation? Would it be the No. 2 company--the employing company--which is the only company with which the Government will have any connection? At present, the contracting companies are Hunting Engineering, Brown and Root and the Atomic Energy Authority. One of those companies is an American company based in Dallas. Another is a major engineering company, for which the production of nuclear warheads will be only a minor activity.
Against whom can the constituents of Conservative Members litigate? The employing company will exist only to employ people. What assets will it have? The Minister has already said that the Government will not give it any. Against whom can the workers and the communities litigate should there be yet another emission of radioactive material?
The proposal for contractorisation has been ill conceived out of the incompetence of the Government. It is a cobbled-together Bill. In Committee, it was evident time and again that the Government had not thought through the problems. They saw the American GOCO scheme and wanted to follow it, rather like some people wanted to follow schemes for marinas and theme parks. The Government therefore picked on the Atomic Weapons Establishment and decided to make it into a GOCO scheme without thinking the matter through. The production of nuclear warheads is far too serious an issue for a Government experiment. That is why we shall press our amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made :--
The House divided : Ayes 170, Noes 219.
Division No. 125] [5.19 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Bellotti, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Benton, Joseph
Bermingham, Gerald
Bidwell, Sydney
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Cartwright, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clelland, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Cousins, Jim
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Dr John
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
| Next Section
| Home Page |